Talk:Hotel Rwanda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hotel Rwanda article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Article name

i moved "Hotel Rwanda (movie)" to "Hotel Rwanda". "Hotel Rwanda" was only a redirect. There are no other articles about "Hotel Rwanda", so it should not be a redirect. it should be the main article. Kingturtle 00:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skin color

I deleted the slight skin assertion (Hollywood arbitrarily selecting light skinned Tutsi to created racial differences). If you disagree can you please point out some critical reviews that addressed this? Was it not true that skin was a slight difference? Lotsofissues 23:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps but it was no primary-difference... nose-form was. In the movie it seems the main difference was skin colour, which is not true. The stuff ive read about this almost never mentions light-skinned vs dark-skinned, only nose-form+height. Other criticism: all the whites in the movie are like good moral people, crying over their memories, but no africans cry, if they shed some tears its because they are scared... Only whites make some comments about the whole thing, its like Africans, who are there, dont know even whats happening... Well well, its a good emotionall drama, no history lesson. Foant 09:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Did you actually watch the whole movie? The Africans are portrayed as knowing very well what is going on, thats why they're so scared? It's not true that none of the characters cry because of what's going on. For example, Paul cries after seeing the bodies. Paul and his wife cry because of the loss of the wife's brother and his wife. There are other instances too. Of course, most of the time, the Africans characters are crying etc because they're scared. That's probably because most of the time they are scared. This is a movie about a bunch of people who's lives are continually in danger. If this movie potrayed their lives after they were no longer in danger, I'm sure they would cry a lot due to their memories about what happened to them and to everyone else. It's true that most of the whites actually seen are potrayed as people who are concerned about what's going on but then the movie makes it clear that the Americans, French etc who you don't see don't care about what's going on. For example, their refusal to send more peace keepers etc. Or when Paul calls up the Sabena airlines CEO/whatever who tells him at the end of their conversation everyone has abandoned them. Or the way the head of the peace keepers tells Paul no one cares about them because they're only Africans. Clearly there is a strong potrayal that there are a lot of whites who don't care about what's going on. The reason why all the whites you see are the ones who care is perhaps because these are the only ones you see? You don't see any whites wo don't care because any that were in Rwanda would have left Rwanda a long time ago and this movie doesn't show many outside Rwanda. As for the skin colour thing, IMHO it's bull. I don't know if it's true the majority of Hutus were potrayed as being darker skin then Tutsis but if you noticed this IMHO you're looking for things which probably don't exist anywhere but your mind and if they did, were very likely unintentional. The only time the difference was mentioned it was potrayed as a largely silly definition poorly founded in actual geneology and mostly based on the nsoe/height difference you mention and created largely by the Belgium colonists which from what I've read is the truth. Also a quick look at the Tutsi article suggests that skin colour is in fact one of the difference which was emphasised by the Belgian colonists who claimed the Tutsis were the superior Hamitic race. I have no idea if this is something Tutsis and Hutus continue to consider today but clearly there is a strong implication that the skin colour difference has been one used previously so even tho the movie never even mentioned this difference, it would appear likely it exists somewhat today given that the this was one of the traits that was used in the creation of this rather flawed (IMHO) seperation of Rwandan people
In the movie Augustin is portrayed as a corrupt and rather horrible person who did nothing to stop the atrocities/genocide but does not appear to suggest that he had any direct involvement in committing or ordering others to commit these crimes. In fact, he is shown to save the characters at various times thanks to the efforts of Paul, who mentioned that he is being potrayed as a war criminal in the west a reputation which is perhaps not totally deserved/meritted. Also, George Rutaganda is potrayed as a brutal cold murdered one of the key agents and advocates of the genocide. There is also the potrayal of the Hutu hotel staffmember who potrays them and of the scene when they trying to leave the hotel. Some discussion of how true all these potrayals are is strongly needed IMHO. I've read that George although clearly a war criminal, was no where near as brutal as the movie potrayed more of someone who got caught up in the rampage and allowed it to happen perhaps offering some support because it enhanced his power rather then being such a strong agent and advocate. 14:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by 60.234.141.76 (talk • contribs) .
The general, Augustin Bizimungu, has been indicted by the ICTR for genocide in Rwanda. As for myself, I got the impression from the movie that his character was actually involved in the genocide, but that when it came to the hotel, he really didn't much care whether or not the hotel residents were killed along with the rest. --Saforrest 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country of origin

There must be a mistake concerning the countries wich made the movie, as it has been nominated for 3 oscars and United States is not on the credit list. As far as I'm concerned only American movies are nominated ( exept for foreing films of course). —This unsigned comment was added by Adrien Chatillon (talk • contribs) .

[edit] *AHEM*

Please continue these types of discussion somwhere else. Thank you. Angrynight 07:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Im pretty sure that the colonel Olivier you refer to is actually Lt.-Gen. Roméo Dallaire. If you read his book Shake hands with the Devil, which is currently beign made into a movie, you will see this. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.59.179 (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

In a recent quote I saw on Time Magazine's site, it seemed like a Rwanda official contended that this movie was not historically accurate. http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1199828,00.html - I don't know much about it, but came here expecting to find a discussion about it. No discussion on the page exists. Is anyone better informed about this? --Ryan Gardner 18:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

When I was in Kigali two years ago, I went to the Hotel des Milles Collines, and met a genocide survivor who was working at the hotel. He said the movie was real and accurate. I heard that repeatedly from other Rwandans, too. Remember, this was one of the few "happy" stories from the genocide. There were many, many other episodes, far more brutal, with far fewer survivors. I met another man who was one of less than a dozen survivors out of 5,000 people killed in one small church. Read We Wish to Inform you That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families.' by Phillip Gourevitch, or Shake Hands With the Devil by Romeo Dallaire (the UN peacekeeping commander who Nick Nolte's character was based on) for a decent background. Fredwerner 21:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry George

Hi, on a completely unrelated subject - I would like to change "Irish" filmmaker to "Northern Irish" filmmaker, because Terry George is indeed from Co. Down, N. Ireland. Thoughts?

Absolutely agreed -- they're two different countries. I'll change that just now. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

His nationality, my friends, is British. NI was UK last time I looked.Daisyabigael (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cars

Because Hotel Rwanda was filmed mostly in South Africa, where one drives on the left-hand side of the road, many of the vehicles are right-hand drive. Rwandans drive on the right side of the road, so the use of right-hand drive cars is incorrect. The mistake is most obvious in the scenes involving buses, which have passenger doors on the wrong (left) side.

I just came back from a 2 week long trip to Rwanda. Although it is true that in Rwanda cars drive on the right side, there are a lot of right-hand drive cars and buses. I got the impression that about half the cars and mini buses are right-hand driven. I don't know why this is the case? Did they drive on the left side before? Is it because they buy cars from neighboring countries? 72.14.224.1 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure its because it's easier to allow both types of cars than to force a policy that requires only one type or the other.Landroo (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed because they buy lots of foreign cars, this is true throughout Africa91.85.183.225 (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Historical accuracy

In the movie the bulk of the soldiers are Pakistani although in real life the troops there during the high of the genocide where Ghanaian, Tunisian and Bangladesh. Im not 100% sure on that as Pakistan was there at one stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wonx2150 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There were Senegalese and Tunisian soldiers as well. The film is NOT greatly accurate on many accounts. The role of the director of Hotel Milles Collines has been denounced by many Rwandans as a complete misrepresentation. Check out Romeo Dallaire's book, as well as PBS's series "Ghosts of Rwanda". Most of the dangerous exfiltrations of tutsi children and moderate hutus were organized and conducted by (deceased) Senegalese captain Mbaye Diagne. This movie is just another Hollywood cardboard cutout representation of reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.236.176 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
One would hope that people would be as critical about "Historical accuracy", when it comes to the Holocaust as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.104.87 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That comment is both irrelevent and inflammatory, can someone who knows how please strikethrough the text as he been done in the comment further above?91.85.183.225 (talk) 09:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis

Yeah, the synopsis really needs some work. Not only is it badly written and non-neutral on a basic standpoint - lines like "...while a non-intervening outside world watched" abound - there are also lines as prejudiced as "ruthless Hutu who are determined to wipe out the entirety of the Tutsis". I'm not about to get into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the Rwandan genocide, but using words like "ruthless" to describe an ethnic group in its entirety is just plain against the standards of Wikipedia, and any piece of writing, for that matter. The whole thing sounds like it came from the back of the movie box, to be honest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.26.70 (talk • contribs) 20:52, March 21, 2008

Uh.. you do realize that this is about the movie right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.6.38 (talk • contribs) 13:19, March 22, 2008

Yes, but it's a synopsis, not a teaser or an advertisement for the movie, and so it should be from a non-sensational, unbiased point of view. And it certainly shouldn't be anything that looks like it was copied and pasted from somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.26.70 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC) But...I do admit that the real problem isn't the issue of neutrality, just that it's badly written in places (again, looks like something from the back of the movie box.) Can't we get rid of or change some of it?

Synopsis erroneoulsy refers to retreating tutsi in the scene where the UN buses are approaching the tutsi lines. Those retreating from advancing tutsi forces would have been hutu! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.79.206 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] paradign shift

What do feel the paradign was and what the paradign shift was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.206.66 (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)